These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

[Discussion] Would a change to destruction be good for EVE?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#21 - 2013-04-08 10:59:11 UTC
But...I like being blown up when I lose. Anything else would be so anticlimactic. This is EVE after all.

Death is already just a slap on the wrist. This sounds like a PvEr's dream of PvP.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#22 - 2013-04-08 11:16:46 UTC
Zappity wrote:
But...I like being blown up when I lose. Anything else would be so anticlimactic. This is EVE after all.

Death is already just a slap on the wrist. This sounds like a PvEr's dream of PvP.


I like being blown up, I just find it weird that all my weapons etc function perfectly until the point when I am in my pod.

Fluffy Bunny Pic!

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#23 - 2013-04-08 20:18:01 UTC
Rhivre wrote:
Zappity wrote:
But...I like being blown up when I lose. Anything else would be so anticlimactic. This is EVE after all.

Death is already just a slap on the wrist. This sounds like a PvEr's dream of PvP.


I like being blown up, I just find it weird that all my weapons etc function perfectly until the point when I am in my pod.


Well that's a fair point. I never understood why heat damage doesn't reduce module efficiency - seems a logical thing to do. Also the damage modules receive in hull damage.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Sante Ixnay
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-04-09 07:56:17 UTC
On the general subject, it would be splendid for industry if fewer modules survived ship destruction. Particularly player-created modules. i.e., T1 and T2. Probably this should also come along with an increase in salvage, and perhaps modest amounts of other raw materials. (Hah, it occurs to me now that drone poo would suit the purpose pretty well.)

-Ideally- another check would significantly increase the chance of destruction if an NPC was involved in the ship kill.
Danari
Syncore
#25 - 2013-04-09 08:34:17 UTC
This has nothing to do with MD, and has a lot to do with new features discussion.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#26 - 2013-04-09 09:42:26 UTC
Danari wrote:
This has nothing to do with MD, and has a lot to do with new features discussion.


Since it potentially turns the industry and its economic aspects quite upside down I wanted to ask about these aspects here.

Right now the stacks of items on the market are getting pretty big. I suspect there is an oversupply of equipment and unless we considered something like this, overstocking would become a problem.

A topic like this might get flamed or flooded away in F&I because its impact on general economy is not considered first.

The gameplay aspects are ofc important and interesting to discuss and balance, but the first and foremost question was regarding it impact on markets and industrial competition and labor market.

Since our current production is quite click heavy, it could be a bit too much of a strain, but the current overstocking tend to show its not.

The logistics of moving these around might increase the value of freighter loads quite a lot, which would mean new incentives to ganking.

So these are the questions I believe are needed first. Later the same concept can be presented, and in fuller format in F&I..
Samroski
Middle-Earth
#27 - 2013-04-09 18:18:36 UTC
It appears, from reading this discussion, that with the current game mechanics it is not feasible for modules to sustain damage with shield or armor depletion. Thus my suggestion:

Hull damage should cause module damage. A ship that escapes with 10% structure should have about 90% of modules severely damaged or destroyed. As suggested earlier, the class of modules more effected/damaged may be related to the type of incoming damage.

To be honest, I am not entirely in favour of this suggestion. As a trader, I can envision an increase in sales, anything from 2-10%. So I suppose it would be good for traders and industrialists and the alleged stockpiles, but the average Joe would probably hate the idea.

Any colour you like.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#28 - 2013-04-09 20:41:20 UTC
Well to be quite honest if I got my say I would make all current hulls 10 times or more what they are and let a ship with only hull left be dead in the water. A total incapacitated state.. Shooting at a ship like this should just destroy modules until only the hull remained. Then at last go pop..

Repairs would make it able to regain mobility.

Eject would always be possible, if ship pops with you not ejecting the pod dies..

Then that have been discussed in many variations on the forums, but the majority wants the joy of seeing ships vaporaize like fireworks, more then they want "realistic" fleet battles.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#29 - 2013-04-10 03:15:37 UTC
Samroski wrote:
Hull damage should cause module damage.


Hull damage does result in a chance of module damage now.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Dan Carter Murray
#30 - 2013-04-10 03:53:34 UTC
i'd like to see higher % chance of destruction for modules on ships destroyed

http://mfi.re/?j7ldoco 50GB free space @ MediaFire.com
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#31 - 2013-04-11 15:56:03 UTC
Dan Carter Murray wrote:
i'd like to see higher % chance of destruction for modules on ships destroyed


Indeed.. Not sure what the chance mechanics are for destruction, but it would be nice if it was balanced to motivate more industrial activity, and price things up more..

So basically meta level would reduce chance of destruction and bulkiness (m3) would reduce chance of destruction. This way the items dropped would promote better pricing on loot and promote industry..
Previous page12